Barry D. Adam
University of Windsor, Canada

Julie M. Albright
University of California, USA

Christopher Andrews
Drew University, USA

Joseph Asomah
University of Saskatchewan, Canada

Rob Beamish
Queen’s University, Canada

Robert D. Benford
University of South Florida, USA

Colin Bernatzky
University of California, Irvine, USA

Gurminder K. Bhambra
University of Warwick, UK

Gary Bowden
University of New Brunswick, Canada

Gaspar Brändle
Universidad de Murcia, Spain

Peter L. Callero
Western Oregon University, USA

Andrew P. Carlin
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK

Hongming Cheng
University of Saskatchewan, Canada

Valerie Chepp
Hamline University, USA

Matthew Clair
Harvard University, USA

Stewart Clegg
University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Jay Coakley
University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA

William C. Cockerham
University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA

Peter Conrad
Brandeis University, USA

James E. Côté
University of Western Ontario, Canada

Marci D. Cottingham
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Ryan T. Cragun
University of Tampa, USA

Graham Day
Bangor University, UK

Mathieu Deflem
University of South Carolina, USA

Gerard Delanty
University of Sussex, UK

Rutledge M. Dennis
George Mason University, USA

Kylan Mattias de Vries
Southern Oregon University, USA

Robert Dingwall
Dingwall Enterprises Ltd., UK

Riley E. Dunlap
Oklahoma State University, USA

Peter Evans
Brown University, USA

Sherelle Ferguson
University of Pennsylvania, USA

Kenneth J. Gergen
Swarthmore College, USA

Erich Goode
Stony Brook University, USA

Katie M. Gordon
SUNY at Stony Brook, USA

Kevin Fox Gotham
Tulane University, USA

William Haller
Clemson University, USA

Ashley Harrell
University of South Carolina, USA

Elizabeth Hartung
California State University, Channel Islands, UK

Patrick Heller
Brown University, USA

Patricia Hynes
University of Bedfordshire, UK

Cate Irvin
Tulane University, USA

Robert Max Jackson
New York University, USA

Guillermina Jasso
New York University, USA

Ryan Kelty
U.S. Air Force Academy, USA

Michael Kimmel
SUNY at Stony Brook, USA

Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz
University of Maryland, USA

Peter Kivisto
Augustana College, USA

Beryl Langer
La Trobe University, Australia

Annette Lareau
University of Pennsylvania, USA

Charles Lee
Arizona State University, USA

Valerie Leiter
Simmons College, USA

Rolf Lidskog
Örebro University, Sweden

John R. Logan
Brown University, USA

Sebastián Madrid
P. Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile

Amir Marvasti
Penn State Altoona, USA

E. Doyle McCarthy
Fordham University, USA

Lisa McCormick
University of Edinburgh, UK

Susan A. McDaniel
University of Lethbridge, Canada

Arthur McLuhan
York University, Canada

Jeremiah C. Morelock
Boston College, USA

Jeylan T. Mortimer
University of Minnesota, USA

Aurea Mota
University of Barcelona, Spain

Nancy Naples
University of Connecticut, USA

Leonard Nevarez
Vassar College, USA

Richard Ocejo
City University of New York, USA

Esther Oliver
University of Barcelona, Spain

Emily Allen Paine
University of Texas, Austin, USA

Sangeeta Parashar
Montclair State University, USA

Alexandra Parrs
American University in Cairo, Egypt, and University of Antwerp, Belgium

Michael Pickering
Loughborough University, UK

Christina Prell
University of Groningen, Netherlands

Tetyana Pudrovska
University of Texas, Austin, USA

Maria C. Ramos
Duke University, USA

Damien W. Riggs
Flinders University, Australia

George Ritzer
University of Maryland, USA

Helen Rizzo
The American University in Cairo, Egypt

Juliet B. Schor
Boston College, USA

Kathleen C. Schwartzman
University of Arizona, USA

Alan Scott
University of New England, Australia

David R. Segal
University of Maryland, USA

Linda L. Semu
McDaniel College, USA

Tracy Shildrick
University of Leeds, UK

Chris Shilling
University of Kent, UK

Leslie Sklair
London School of Economics and Political Science, UK

Lynn Smith‐Lovin
Duke University, USA

David A. Snow
University of California, Irvine, USA

Michele Sorice
LUISS University, Rome, Italy, and University of Stirling, Scotland, UK

Alan Spector
Purdue University Northwest, USA

Liz Stanley
University of Edinburgh, UK

Jeffrey Stepnisky
MacEwan University, Canada

John Stone
Boston University, USA

Piotr Sztompka
Jagiellonian University, Poland

Shane Thye
University of South Carolina, USA

Charalambos Tsekeris
Academy of Athens, Greece

Rens Vliegenthart
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Rudi Volti
Pitzer College, USA

John B. Williamson
Boston College, USA

Nico Wilterdink
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Bronwyn Winter
University of Sydney, Australia

James D. Wright
University of Central Florida, USA

Chris Yuill
Robert Gordon University, UK

Milan Zafirovski
University of North Texas, USA

The idea for this project was borne not only from my experience as an academic sociologist but also from my 15 years of experience working as a senior managing editor for Wiley Blackwell. Starting in my second year of graduate school until the present day, I have been involved in managing, advising on, and/or co‐editing over a dozen major sociological reference works with Wiley totaling more than three dozen individual volumes. These experiences have given me an unusual perspective in that I have been continually exposed to the broad range of fields and subfields within the discipline, including topics extending far outside the realm of my own individual research and interests. This broad exposure to topics, people, and writings from across the sociological spectrum is what inspired this project.

This volume is designed to be a handy reference for anyone working in, studying, or simply interested in the field of sociology. Contributions have been written to provide the reader with a general overview of many of the concepts widely considered to be at the heart of the field today. The volume has been envisioned in such a way so as to be useful to everyone from the novice undergraduate student taking their first introduction to sociology course up to the seasoned expert in the field looking for a quick refresher on a critical concept.

The first major challenge when conceptualizing this project was to determine what exactly is a “core” concept in sociology. To do so I consulted a range of sources including introductory textbooks, headword lists from a dozen sociology‐related encyclopedias, and my own experience (itself a concept that could be considered anathema to any broad‐based sociological endeavor!) and came up with a list of 90 or so concepts that I thought fit the bill. That list was then circulated amongst several “big names” in the field who each came back with their own recommendations on what was missing and what might be a bit superfluous. This project represents a synthesis of that research and feedback. It is fair to assume that most readers of this volume will no doubt be able to identify concepts that they feel are glaringly absent and probably also point out a few that seem peripheral to the field. Such reactions are inevitable with a project of this nature.

Building on the above, there is no doubt that the idea of a core concept will vary depending not just on one’s personal background and interests but also on where they are (no doubt such a list compiled in France or Japan or Kenya might look a bit different), when they are (one can imagine how this list might have looked 25 years ago, or will look 25 years from now), who they are (as good sociologists we recognize that one’s personal demographics can color their perceptions), the methods they use (I can imagine quantitative, qualitative, and mixed‐methods‐oriented folks having some interesting discussions over this list), and even their own motivations to be interested in sociology (revolutionaries, reformers, and pragmatists would all no doubt conceive of such a list differently). That said, every attempt was made to create a volume that was as global, in both the literal and the metaphoric sense, as possible.

The contributors in this volume come from a wide range of backgrounds but nearly all are recognized names at the top of their respective fields. Thus, amongst the contributors one will find many names that will be familiar to anyone who has taken so much as an introduction to sociology course. The contributor list also draws on experts from around the world, and not just the so‐called “Global North.” I believe the real strength of this volume lies in that broad range of expertise. I am grateful to each and every one of these contributors for allowing me to compile their combined expertise into a single volume.

There are many people to thank on a project such as this as this volume represents the efforts of more than one hundred people. First, and foremost, I would like to thank Justin Vaughan, my publisher, who believed in me enough to let me undertake this challenging project. Justin and I have worked together on projects such as this for some 15 years now and I cannot imagine a more supportive publisher. I would also like to thank Liz Wingett, Dominic Bibby, Emily Corkhill, Louise Spencely, and the rest of the team at Wiley for their hard work and dedication to this project. They have continued to be a joy with whom to work.

An obvious thank you goes to each of the contributors to this volume. It was their hard work, expertise, and generosity of time and intellect that really made this project possible. It is with sincere gratitude that I acknowledge this project as a fruit of their labor. A special thank you goes to the anonymous reviewers who gave feedback on early drafts of the proposed headword list for this volume. Their feedback was invaluable in putting this together, and while their input only made this volume stronger, any shortcomings are strictly a fault of mine alone.

Sociology of aging takes a social lens to the complex processes of aging from birth to death. It focusses not only on older adults, but on the entirety of the life course, and how social factors such as education, income, and ethnicity, for example, contribute to life‐long aging. Structural factors in societies, such as the degrees of inequality, political systems, or policy regimes also have consequences for how we age, or even whether we age or die young.

Sociology of ageing has a relatively short history among sociology sub‐areas. It only became a Research Committee (which is a thematic specialization) in the International Sociological Association in 1974, although there had been a working group on “Sociology of Old Age” earlier. The Research Committee is now called “Sociology of Aging and Life Course,” indicative of the expanded focus of the field. Sociologists turning their attention to aging or older people had to fight for recognition in the discipline. Identity questions arose on whether sociologists of aging were really sociologists or gerontologists. The latter focus on older populations with an interdisciplinary and often a practice‐oriented lens. Sociologists studying ageing, like older adults themselves in society, were not seen as having high status.

This sociological sub‐area has been both constrained and advantaged by its early focus on empirical and often policy‐relevant research questions. Methods used initially were often descriptive, cross‐sectional, and both quantitative and qualitative. The often practical and easily interpreted research made sociology of aging interesting for policy makers and the public. It did less to encourage acceptance in wider sociological circles which tended to see it as less than real sociology. The field has been sharply critiqued in recent decades for its lack of theory (Marshall and Bengstson 2011). That is now changing, and indeed, may have been an overplayed critique.

Age stratification theories infused some early studies in sociology of aging, essentially taking the classical sociological theories of Durkheim, Marx, and Weber and applying them to age. Disengagement theory (Cumming and Henry 1961) was a truly transdisciplinary theoretical innovation, one which brought both interest and acclaim to the field. It posited that with the physical and psychological decline of older adults, they withdrew from society, serving a purpose both for the aging individuals of whom less was expected, and for the society in preparing for eventual death of older people. Activity theory, which still contrasts with, and contests, disengagement, begins with the practical concept of remaining active to stay younger longer. The degree to which this is an actual sociological theory remains open to debate, but it is popular in policy and research circles, as well in the popular mind perhaps particularly in US sociology of aging.

As both sociological theories of aging such as the life course perspective (McDaniel and Bernard 2011) advanced, sociology of aging gradually moved out of the margins of sociology. It is now a vibrant field, infused with feminist sociology, globalization, theories and research on intergenerational relations and dynamics, and, perhaps most importantly, with insights and methods of biology, psychology, and public policy. The infusion of other disciplines makes sociology of aging research no less sociological; in fact, the contribution of social factors to the aging process become more not less vivid.

The current emphasis on life course theory as central to sociology of ageing is both welcome and concerning. Life course theory, with its emphasis on life transitions and linked lives, has enabled deeper understanding of aging as a social process. So central is life course theory to the sociology of aging that the ISA research committee on aging has added life course to its title. There is no doubt that life course theory as a fully complex sociological theory adds much to the sociology of ageing. That said, concerns have been expressed that it is perhaps too individual‐focussed without taking social structures as much into account. Whether this is a justified critique or not remains to be seen. Matilda White Riley (1987) in her very early exposition of life course and aging, argues that individual processes of aging over the life course change social structures while, at the same time, social structures change aging.

Future directions that sociology of aging might take include a remarkable breadth and depth. Caring and care provision remains a huge topic to explore, particularly in the context of globalized care, both families that are multinational and thus caring across borders, and carers who are imported. Intergenerational supports, dynamics, and inequalities, both micro and macro are another area likely to be mined in future for new insights (Biggs and Lowenstein 2011). Social supports and their absence is another ongoing direction for research, particularly with new insights about the negative health impacts of loneliness. Changing work and non‐work life course patterns and their implications for ageing in future is a big challenge. Lastly, but no less importantly, data sets that link various records about health, lifestyle, families, education, and work enable deeper understanding of the factors and forces that contribute to mortality and illness differentials as we age.

SEE ALSO: Body, the; Demography and Population Studies; Family and Kinship, Sociology of; Life Course

Alienation theory speaks to the lived experience of capitalist society. The basic premise is that social agents are estranged from their talents and creativity, and lose control of their ability to work meaningfully with others. Capitalist economic and social relations are the cause of that estrangement. Human activity is directed towards the creation of profit rather than working collectively to make human society a better place in which to live. The subjective lived experience of alienation is the denial of self‐actualization, which results in poor health, lower all‐round wellbeing, including depression, being frustrated with life, and a sense of social fragmentation.

The theory of alienation is most commonly associated with Marx, forming a crucial element of his wider critique of capitalism, but it does also share some common ground with Durkheim’s and Merton’s ideas on anomie. Marx identified four basic expressions or modalities of alienation:

1. Product alienation: where the social agent loses control of what they have produced.
2. Process alienation: where the social agent loses control over how they work.
3. Human nature alienation: where social agents cannot exercise their innate abilities to be creative, and to use their talents and skills.
4. Other human alienation: where social agents are distanced from each other, and other people are recast as an object of competition, threat, or hate.

Within sociology the use of alienation theory reached its peak in the 1960s and 1970s. A considerable output of research‐based journal articles and theory‐orientated books were published at that time, however it was often intellectually fractious, with alienation theory being the subject of much debate. The empirical research was often criticised as lacking theoretical rigor, while the reverse was claimed about the theoretical work being insufficiently tested with research. Debates also surrounded whether to focus on the subjective and psychological experiences of alienation or the objective causes of alienation within the economic and social structures of capitalist society.

The rapid decline of alienation theory from the early 1980s onwards can be traced to a number of other reasons too: the collapse of the general Marxist political project, the rise of neoliberalism, the move towards poststructural and postmodern theories within sociology and the rise of new light or immaterial service industries. By the early 1990s interest in alienation theory had waned.

There has been a modest re‐engagement with alienation theory within sociology of late. Some sociologists have begun to explore how alienation can be used to understand the modern workplace and how alienation theory can provide insights into a diverse range of areas such as technology, and health and wellbeing. This renewed interest has arisen due to what are seen as the analytical shortcomings of postmodernist theory and that the modern neoliberal corporate workplace is filled with the sort of power relations that Marx would easily recognize. Workers and social agents across the Global North and South face meaningless fragmented working conditions, where they are subject to increasing levels of exploitation and managerial control.

SEE ALSO: Anomie; Class; Marxism; Sociological Theory; Work, Occupations and Professions, Sociology of.

Further Reading

1. Ollman, Bertell.1976. Alienation: Marx's Conception of Man in Capitalist Society, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Rahel, Jaeggi. 2014. Alienation (New Directions in Critical Theory). Columbia: Columbia University Press.
3. Wendling, Amy. 2009. Karl Marx on Technology and Alienation. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
4. Yuill, Chris. 2011. “Forgetting and Remembering Alienation.” The History of Human Sciences 24 (2): 103–119.

Anomie refers to a society’s relative degree of normlessness or an ineffectiveness of norms to regulate behavior (Deflem 2015). Derived from the Greek terms ‘anomia’, the concept was first introduced in sociology by Emile Durkheim, who had adopted the term from French moral philosopher Jean‐Marie Guyau, to develop it sociologically in his study on the social division of labor (Durkheim [1893] 1984). Durkheim’s concept of anomie refers to the exceptional social circumstances under which the division of labor is not, or not sufficiently, regulated. In his seminal study on suicide, Durkheim ([1897] 1951) similarly employs anomie to differentiate that social type of suicide which results from a sudden or chronic lack of regulation.

In modern sociology, anomie was popularized in Robert K. Merton’s work on deviance where he argues that various types of deviant behavior result from the strain that is exerted under conditions of a lack of opportunities to legitimate means of advancement (Merton 1957a, 1957b). Anomie results from the great emphasis that is placed in American society on attaining the cultural dominant goal of individual success irrespective of the means by which those goals are to be attained. Merton argues this de‐institutionalization of means to be characteristic of American society as a whole.

In contemporary sociology, the anomie concept has lost the centrality it enjoyed in post‐World War II sociology when structural‐functionalism was the dominant paradigm. Yet, a resurgence of anomie has since also taken place. Merton’s anomie concept has continued to be of intellectual interest via the popularity of the related strain theory of deviance. Moreover the Durkheimian concept of anomie as societal deregulation has also remained of significance, both theoretically in view of the continued centrality of Durkheimian thought as well as empirically to describe the impact of dramatic societal changes such as the fall of communism and the globalization of capitalism.

SEE ALSO: Alienation; Class; Deviance

Body matters have long been viewed as the province of the natural rather than the social sciences, as evident in Durkheim’s insistence that sociology involves studying “social facts” that are qualitatively different from the subject matter of biology. Yet sociology has, since the early 1980s, focused increasingly on the physical constitution, the senses and affects of human being. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the “rise of embodiment” has been one of the most influential sociological developments over the last thirty years, culminating in the establishment of an interdisciplinary field of “body studies.” It is not just the social sciences, moreover, that have recognized the societal importance of bodies. Epigenetics has acknowledged that social factors can determine the expression of genes, for example, while bioarchaeology has revealed how human bones can illuminate patterns of migration and gender differences in diet. Perspectives from outside as well as inside the discipline have thus recognized the importance of studying the body as a social as well as an organic phenomenon.

It is social developments themselves, however, that have highlighted most visibly the importance of the body for understanding modern societies. The rise of consumer culture from the 1950s was associated with a proliferation of “slim, sexy and youthful” body images in advertising and social media. Relatedly, people’s pursuit of the “body beautiful” has intensified recently, with 15.6 million cosmetic procedures performed in the United States alone during 2014. This obsession with bodily perfection has also been associated with social problems, including eating disorders, and the invention of new terms such as “muscle dysmorphia” and “tanorexia” to denote obsessions with physical appearance. The prominence of such issues helps account for why sociologists, interested in an array of contemporary developments, have felt compelled to incorporate body matters into their research.

Classical Foundations

Sociology has also become interested in the body as a means of reinterpreting its heritage in order to enhance the discipline’s explanatory power. In this context, while the status of the body may have been submerged within classical sociology, analysts have unearthed a “secret history” of relevant writings. These include Spinoza’s monism, Marx’s materialism, and Nietzsche’s analyses of Apollonian rationality and Dionysian sensuality. Within sociology itself, Comte linked morally harmonious societies with actions informed by mind and heart, while Tönnies understood the shift from medieval to modern societies as the outcome of contrasting embodied wills. It was the writings of Durkheim, Weber, and Elias, however, that have arguably proven of most enduring worth to sociological studies of the body.

Despite associating sociology with the study of institutions, Durkheim developed a theory of religion and society based on a concern with the body’s social potential. While bodies generate egoistic appetites, they conceal “a sacred principle that erupts onto the surface” via markings or adornments that facilitate the circulation in social assemblies of a collective effervescence enabling individuals to become attached to and emboldened by entities greater than themselves (Durkheim [1912] 1995: 138, 233). These themes continue to resonate in studies of forms of embodiment, forms of sociality, and diverse manifestations of the sacred.

Emanating from the contrasting methodologically individualist tradition of German thought, Weber also recruited the body to his writings on the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Weber analyzed how religious beliefs shaped bodily identities and behavior. Eschewing sinful pleasure, and immersing themselves in labor while searching for worldly signs of election, the physical habits stimulated by the Reformers provided a corporeal basis for rational capitalism. Weber’s writings continue to influence body studies of rationalization, diet, frailty, and religion.

Norbert Elias’s writings on long‐term civilizing processes (recognized increasingly as an essential contribution to the foundations of the discipline) have inspired contemporary analyses of the intercorporeal interdependences that drive social developments. Elias explored how codes of body management gained increasing importance in almost every European country from the Renaissance onwards, promoting a heightened tendency among people to monitor and mold themselves in relation to these criteria. These developments were assisted by wider social contexts: in contrast to earlier periods, survival depended less on physical battles and more on skills of impression management in which the body became a location for social codes.

Embodying Structure and Agency

Classical sociological resources continue to influence contemporary studies, but two areas in which considerations of the body have exerted a particular effect across sociology concern conceptions of social structures and human agency. Social structures have often been conceived of as operating via ideological forces, while people’s capacities to act have been linked to status or class‐based capacities for cognitive thought. Yet this focus on the mind ignores the corporeal correlates of constraint and enablement, as evident in the work of two of the most important figures within the sociology of the body: Michel Foucault and Marcel Mauss.

Foucault (1975) wrote extensively on the operation of disciplinary structures. In the European penal system, for example, medieval displays of monarchical power focused upon destroying the bodies of offenders. In the late early modern era, however, there emerged a new “art of penal government” in which disciplining the body became more important than destroying it. Focused upon improving the population’s human capital, this “art” was exemplified by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s design for a “panopticon” conducive to rehabilitation. Evident in developments across hospitals, asylums, prisons, and schools, the recent culmination of these more “positive” means of control is exemplified by a consumer culture that eschews “control by repression” in favor of control by stimulation.

In relation to human agency, in contrast, Marcel Mauss’s ([1934] 1973) writings on “techniques of the body” have been central to analyses of culture and action. Mauss identifies social, psychological, and biological dimensions to body techniques, and emphasizes that our knowledge is intimately related to how we sense and move within our environment. In contrast to conventional Western philosophical conceptions of a “brain‐bound mind” trapped within an irrational body, learning involves transactions with our environment; taking our surroundings into our bodies through breath, sight, hearing, etc., while also transforming them through our actions. This approach towards the embodied basis of human agency has been complemented by studies of “body pedagogics” that draw on the writings of the pragmatists Dewey, Mead, Peirce, and James ‐ and also on the phenomenologist Merleau‐Ponty ‐ in suggesting that action passes through cycles of habit, crisis and creativity as individuals experience equilibrium or disturbance within their environment.

If body matters are key to understanding structures and agency, so too they are for comprehending related social processes. Social divisions and power relations are articulated through various features of the body. Racism is a prominent example, with the history of plastic surgery highlighting how discrimination and persecution operate through the medium of the body. Social solidarities also emerge through the body. Tattooing and scarification have long been used to signify tribal and communal membership, while the food incorporated into or excluded from bodies during periods of religious observance including Ramadan has traditionally been associated with the promotion of collective experiences of belonging. Such examples suggest the body is our most natural symbol (Douglas 1970). It is often experienced intensely as a sign and vehicle of identity and belonging that can also signal deep differences between peoples.

Contested Bodies

Having outlined the background to and foundations of body studies, it is important to highlight the diverse trajectories associated with the subject as well as the contemporary conflicts with which it is associated. The distinctive factors that have shaped current writings on embodiment include “second wave” feminism’s focus on gendered bodies, and ecological concerns about “one‐dimensional” consumption‐oriented lifestyles. Elsewhere, there has been a focus on commodification processes and the body, ranging from the brutal selling of women and children into the sex industry, to the global problem of organ trafficking and the pervasive standing of appearance as a form of physical capital. The significance of the body as a commodity has also added to the valuation placed upon youth, and the stigma associated with ageing and dependence.

From a different perspective, current sociological trajectories involving the body have also been influenced by the rise of embodied artificial intelligence in the form of robotics. This helped validate the discipline’s concern to view the body as a constructed phenomenon. Scientific advances in medicine encouraged a distinct concern with the body in sociological writings on the rise of self‐governance, while the discipline has maintained its concern with “heavy and ponderous” means of governance following the Bush government’s “war on terror” and the intensified concern with “alien bodies.” Finally, while the body used to be seen as natural, determined by the parameters of nature, advances in science and technology have resulted in it being viewed as alterable and subject to the designs of individuals; a project amenable to alteration as a consequence of individual, national, religious, or other agendas.

These developments highlight very different aspects of the body. From its gendered, constructed, governmental, exchange, and medical values, the body slips and slides, metamorphosing in terms of its meaning and status. At a time when scientific and technological interventions into the body have increased our capacity to alter our physical appearances and capacities to unprecedented levels, body matters have become increasingly contested as well as being increasingly visible. In this context, if we consider the current relevance of Durkheim’s work, it is reasonable to explore whether bodies are now prized and even rendered sacred on the basis of varied and opposing factors that are likely to keep them central to sociology for the foreseeable future.

SEE ALSO: Emotion, Sociology of; Gender; Identity